Defamation Communications Decency Act

Defamation is a false statement, either written or oral, that harms the reputation of another person. In order to recover for defamation, a victim must establish that 1) the statement was false 2) the statement... more +
Defamation is a false statement, either written or oral, that harms the reputation of another person. In order to recover for defamation, a victim must establish that 1) the statement was false 2) the statement was communicated or published to a third party 3) the defendant caused the statement to be communicated or published, either intentionally or at least negligently 4) some harm was suffered as a result. less -
News & Analysis as of

Freedom of Speech on the Internet: The Power of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Experienced First Amendment lawyers know that websites hosting user-created content are extremely difficult to sue for defamation. This is due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, codified at 47 U.S.C. §...more

A Tough Assignment: The Use of Copyright Law to Squelch, and Preserve, Negative Online Reviews of Doctors and Lawyers

There are few things more terrifying to a doctor, lawyer or other professional than a bad online review. Online reviews are frequently uncivil, often indelible and in some cases outright false. Meanwhile, Section 230 of the...more

#Libel and the Lulu App

You can rate your favorite pizza place online. Why not your ex-boyfriend? That’s the idea, at least, behind Lulu. The popular app allows women, verified through their Facebook profiles, to rate men using pre-written...more

Choosing a Specific Domain Name and Adding Commentary to Defamatory Posts Causes Host to Lose §230 Immunity

Via Section 230, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides broad immunity for service providers, hosts and website operators for claims stemming from their publication of information created by third parties....more

TheDirty.com Held Liable Despite Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

TheDirty.com is not exactly deserving of sympathy. Much like Playboy and Hustler pushed the boundaries of the First Amendment in the past, rumor sites like TheDirty.com are pushing the limits of Section 230 immunity for...more

TheDirty.com Goes to Trial

In 2012, we reported on a pair of district court decisions that, based on similar facts, split on whether defendant TheDirty.com, a gossip website, qualified for immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act...more

Business Law Newsletter - January 2013

In This Issue: - Written Contracts and the Statute of Limitations...Page 1 - Website Owners: Who is Liable for Third Party Postings on Your Website?...Page 2 - Business Tort Brings Sanctions...Page 3 -...more

Network Interference: A Legal Guide to the Commercial Risks and Rewards of the Social Media Phenomenon (2nd Edition)

In October 2009, we published the first edition of this White Paper, focusing primarily on social media issues in the United States. The response was overwhelming and far beyond our expectation — clients, friends, press and...more

Website Owners: Who Is Liable For Third Party Postings On Your Website?

A recent Fairfax County defamation case involving a consumer’s scathing postings against a contractor on Yelp and Angie’s List raises the issue as to who can be held liable for postings made by third parties. Can the...more

9 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1